Case No. 17-586 | W.D. Tex.
Gerrymandering is trending: Back in October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gill v. Whitford about redistricting in Wisconsin, and just last month, the Court heard oral arguments in Benisek v. Lamone, which concerned the gerrymandering of Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District. Now we move to gerrymandering in Texas.
In 2012, a three-judge district court selected redistricting plans as a result of litigation that made its way to the Supreme Court in Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388 (2012). The Texas Legislature subsequently adopted those interim maps and made them permanent. Instead of dismissing the initial complaint as moot, the district court granted appellees leave to amend their complaint and respond to the newly enacted court-drawn maps.
Appellees allege that these new redistricting maps, as drawn by the district court, illegally discriminate against minority voters and violate the Voting Rights Act as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Appellees claim that the legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering and intentional vote dilution because the new maps incorporate districts in three counties that are the same as those in the illegally gerrymandered maps at issue in 2012. Appellants, however, claim that the legislature could not have intentionally discriminated when it enacted the new redistricting maps because those maps were drawn by the district court, and were found by that court to comply with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.
Two district courts found the court-drawn maps to be invalid, and the courts’ orders required the Governor of Texas, one of the Appellants, to order a special session of the Legislature to draw a new map. If this failed to happen within three days, Appellees could propose a new map. The Supreme Court blocked the courts’ orders and put the redistricting on hold to determine whether there is merit to the Appellants’ argument.
Appellees also claim that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from decisions of three-judge district courts only when there was “an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit, or proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 1253 (2012). Appellants, however, claim that jurisdiction is proper because the court’s orders have “the ‘practical effect’ of an injunction.” Brief of Appellants at 15, Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-586 (U.S. filed Feb. 26, 2018) (quoting Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83 (1981)). If the Supreme Court finds that it does have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, other states will need to pay close attention to how these gerrymandering cases are resolved in order to avoid future constitutional challenges to their own redistricting endeavors.